V. Mohanakrisnan vs Shanmughavadivu

Natarajan, J.—The Petitioner is a third party to a proceeding in C.C. 17490 of 1980 on the file of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate.

Madras. The Respondent herein has filed a complaint against the former Special Officer, Executive Officer and an Electrician of the Triplicane

Urban Cooperative Society Ltd., hereinafter, referred to as the T.U.C.S. Ltd,, for certain offences alleged to have been committed by them in

connection with the termination of the electricity, supply to the portion occupied by her as a lessee. In order to prove her case, the Respondent

took out. an application for the summoning of two files from the office of the T.U.C.S. Ltd. One file relates to the correspondence between the

officers of the T.U.C.S. Ltd., and he Accommodation Controller regarding the disconnection of electricity supply to the complainant''s portion and

the other file, relates to certain disciplinary, proceedings taken by the T.U.C.S. Ltd,, against one Kadirvelu, Accountant, of the T.U.C.S, Ltd., on

the ground that he had joked hands, with the complainant and indulged in certain unlawful acts, such as giving unauthorised, supply of electricity to

the portion occupied by the complainant from the electrical fittings in the portion occupied by him. After the files had been sent for, the Petitioner

herein who is a joint Registrar of Co-operative, Societies, and working on deputation with the T.U.C.S. Ltd., has filed the petition stating that the

files contain official notes and confidential instructions issued by a public officer and as such they cannot be disclosed to any one as otherwise

public interest will suffer, In short, the Petitioner claimed privilege from disclosing contents of the files u/s 124 of the Evidence Act.

The Respondent opposed the petition. The learned Magistrate, after considering the matter, has held that the Petitioner is not a public officer

and the disclosure of the contents of the files with not affect public interest in any manner. Consequently, he has dismissed the petition filed by the

Petitioner. It is against that order the present petition has been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order pasted by the

learned Magistrate.

On a short ground, this petition deserves to fail in so far as one of the files is concerned. In S.S. Dhanoa Vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and

Others, , the Supreme Court the Supreme Court has held, that a cooperative society is not a statutory body, because it is not created by a statute

and that consequently a member of the Indian Administrative Service whose services are placed at the disposal of a co-operative society will not

be a public servant within the meaning of Clause (12) of Section 21 of the Penal Code for purposes of Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure,

The ratio in that case will apply with equal force to the facts of this case. Hence, in so far as the first file relating to the correspondence between the

officers of the T.U.C.S. Ltd, and the Accommodation Controller regarding the disconnection of electricity supply to the Respondent herein is

concerned, there can, be no plea of privilege against the disclosure of the contents of that file on the ground of public interest.

In so far as the other file is concerned, its contents are entirely outside the scope of the enquiry in this case. That file relates to the T.UC.S. Ltd.,

taking disciplinary action against Kadirvelu, who was formerly working as Accountant in the T.U.C.S. Ltd. It would appear that charges were

framed against him, one of the charges being that he unauthorisedly gave electricity supply to the complainant in the case, after the supply had been

disconnected by the society for justifiable reasons. As to what happened between the T.U.C.S. Ltd., and Kadirvelu and what charges were

framed against him; etc., will not be germane for consideration in the criminal complaint filed by the complainant. In such circumstances, the order

of the Magistrate as regards the second file cannot be sustained. This is on the ground that the contents of"" the file are irrelevant for consideration

and not on the ground that the Petitioner can claim privilege in respect of the contents of the file. More-Over, when disciplinary action has been

taken against Kadirvelu, it would not be in the interests of the society to disclose the contents of that file in the present proceedings, especially

when the offence complained of had taken place prior to the disciplinary action being taken against Kadirvelu.

Hence, the order of the learned Magistrate will stand confirmed in so, far as the first file is concerned. Bat in so fir as the other file relating to the

discisplinary proceedings against Kadirvelu is concerned,, the order of the learned Magistrate will stand set aside. To this extent the criminal

miscellaneous petition will stand allowed.